Legal Reasoning Flashcards
(105 cards)
Astha, who is a very good painter, is also a patient in a mental asylum, who, at intervals, is of sound mind. During one of these intervals, she entered into a relationship with Lopamudra to paint a picture of her for a specified amount. She, however, asked Lopamudra to pay her the entire amount in advance. One month later, on the day of delivery of the painting, Astha refused to perform the contract saying that she suffers from insanity. Can Lopamudra force performance?
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
(a) Yes, because Astha was of sound mind when she entered into the contract.
(b) No, because Astha had been of unsound mind even while the contract was signed which is proved by the fact that she was admitted in an asylum.
(c) Yes, because a good painter can paint irrespective of his/her mental stability.
(d) No, because it was silly on Lopamudra’s part to enter into a contract with a mental patient admitted in an asylum.
(a) Yes, because Astha was of sound mind when she entered into the contract.
Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer.
(a) X can be held liable for fraud.
(b) X can be held liable for misrepresentation.
(c) X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse.
(d) X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things.
(c) X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse.
Agni enters into a contract with Tanuj whereby Tanuj will supply Agni with 10 grams of cocaine for a specified amount. Is the contract void?
Principle: If the consideration or object of an agreement is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent, or is injurious to the person or property of another or, the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy, then the object or consideration shall be deemed unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
a. Yes, because the contract is for the sale of illegal drugs.
b. No, because Agni and Tanuj have entered into the contract out of their own free will, and being the citizens of a free country, they have the right to do so.
c. Yes, because drugs are harmful.
(d) None of these.
a. Yes, because the contract is for the sale of illegal drugs.
If the tax rate increases with the higher level of income, it is called –
(a) Progressive Tax (b) Proportional Tax (c) Lump sum Tax (d) Regressive Tax
(a) Progressive Tax
A fake doctor operated on a man for internal piles by cutting them out with an kitchen ordinary knife. The man died of haemorrhage.
(a) Doctor is guilty of murder
(b) Doctor is not guilty.
(c) Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
(d) None of these.
C
Dr Mortimer performed a kidney operation upon James for removal of kidney stones. James was already affected by HIV. Dr Mortimer had warned James of all the possible risks. James, out of his own volition, decided to undertake the risks and signed a bond certifying the same. James died of haemorrhage as a result of the operation.
(a) Doctor is guilty of murder.
(b) Doctor is not guilty.
(c) Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
(d) None of these.
B
Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own.
No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.
(a) No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament toenact or re-enact a law
(b) The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament tomake a new law
(c) The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct
Parliament to make a new law
(d) None of these
C
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Fact: “Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls
Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for CAR is Rs. 20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the CAR for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.
(a) He cannot refuse to sell the CAR because the contract has already been made.
(b) He can refuse to sell the CAR because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer
(c) It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
(d) None of these
B
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
Facts: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterwards, wants to file a suit against Mr. X.
(a) Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound state of mind when he entered intocontract.
(b) Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was ofunsound state of mind at the time of contract.
(c) Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of soundstate of mind at the time of contract.
C
Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.
Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?
(a) No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving.
(b) No, this is not a negligent act.
(c) Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly.
(d) Yes, because the police has the power to arrest a person driving rashly.
A
Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.
Fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.
(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notificationissued two days ago
(b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable
(c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable
(d) X’s liability would depend on the discretion of the court
C
Principle: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
Facts: Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
(a) X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.
(b) X can be held responsible for trespass of goods (c) X has not committed any wrong.
(d) None of the above.
B
Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer-
(a) X can be held liable for fraud
(b) X can be held liable for misrepresentation
(c) X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental stateof the horse
(d) X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things
C
On 31st March 1976, FCRA was enacted with an aim to regulate the utilization of foreign contributions/hospitality by individuals, associations to keep it consistent with the values of a sovereign, democratic republic. The FCRA was enacted in 1976 in order to maintain strict control over voluntary organisations and political associations that received foreign fundings. In 1984, an amendment was made to the act requiring all the Non-Governmental Organisations to register themselves with the Home Ministry. In 2010, the act was repealed and a new act with strict provisions was enacted. FCRA 2010 is a consolidating act passed by the Government of India in the year 2010. It seeks to regulate foreign contributions or donations and hospitality (air travel, hotel accommodation etc) to Indian organizations and individuals and to stop such contributions which might damage the national interest. It is an act passed for regulating and prohibiting the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by companies, associations or individuals for such activities that could prove to be detrimental to the national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Since the Act is internal security legislation, despite being a law related to financial legislation, it falls into the purview of the Home Ministry and not the Reserve Bank of India. The foreign inflow has almost doubled in the last decade, however, as per the government, the entities receiving the funds aren’t using it for the declared purpose. In FCRA 2020, only 20% of the foreign funds can be used for administrative purposes while the limit was 50% in FCRA 2010. This might hamper the workings of several small NGOs who depend on such funds. The new provisions aim to enhance transparency and accountability in the matter of foreign funds inflow and utilisation. The bill also makes the Aadhar number mandatory for recipients (passport or OCI card will be used as the identification document in case of foreigners).
- FCRA 2010 regulates:
A. Foreign Hospitality B. Foreign Contribution
C. Both A and B.
D. Neither: as they are regulated by FEMA
2. FCRA applies to: A. Whole of India B. Indian Citizens Outside India C. Branches of Indian Registered Co’s outside India D. All of these
1c
2d
Mr. Freeman of Delhi was gifted for his personal use, a pen worth 30,000/- by the organizers of the event which he was an invitee for: Is it a Foreign Contribution?
A. Yes, amount exceeds 25000/
B. Yes, contribution is made by a foreign source
C. No, is in nature of gift for personal use
D. No, as gift by a professional body not classified as foreign source
C
Which of these are Foreign Source:
A. Club exclusively made up of Indian Citizens, formed and registered outside India
B. Club exclusively made up of Indian Citizens, formed and registered inside India
C. Both a and b
D. Neither a nor b
A
Arnab, an editor of Never-ever Magazine, a bi-monthly registered publication magazine, with national circulation, took money from Foreign Source: Is this permissible u/s 3 of FCRA?
A. Yes, as it’s a magazine and not a registered newspaper
B. No, as no distinction is made between a Magazine or any other publication u/s 3 of FCRA
C. Yes, as it is not a daily issue and prohibition applies to daily issues only
D. No, as it is a nationally circulated magazine
A
In the instant case, the appealing party was a restricted organization. He was mainly in business of manufacturing and selling of sugars. On October 10th, 1968, a piece of news showed up expressing that the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh had chosen to give exception from deals charge for a time of three years under Section 4-A, Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 to all new modern units in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On October 11th, 1968 the appealing party kept in touch with the Director of Industries expressing that taking into account the business charge occasion reported by the administration, the litigant wanted to set up a plant for the production of vanaspati and looked for affirmation of the exception. The Director of Industries affirmed the position. An affirmation to a similar impact was given by the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Taking into account these confirmations, the appealing party proceeded with the setting up of the processing plant. In May 1969, the State administration of Uttar Pradesh reconsidered on the topic of exclusion and mentioned the litigant to go to a gathering. At the gathering, the appealing party’s agent said that on the affirmation and assurance of the respondent (the legislature of Uttar Pradesh) the litigant had continued setting up the manufacturing plant. In this belief that the Government has exempted him from tax, he took a huge loan and started to work on it. However, after sometime, the Government gave a second thought to its tax exemption policy. It called for a meeting regarding this issue and called the petitioner to attend the meeting. Petitioner sent his representative to attend the meeting. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh, in any case, on January 20th, 1970, took a strategy choice that new vanaspati units which went into business creation by September 30th, 1970, would be given a fractional concession of deals charge. The litigant’s factor went into creation on July 2nd, 1970, yet the State Government indeed changed its arrangement, and on August 12th, 1970 suggested its choice to cancel the
concessions.
- Whether the plaintiff waived his right to have a cause of action by accepting partial exemption?
A. Government would be liable if the petitioner did not accept the concessional rates of tax. But he did waive his right to have a cause of action by accepting the partial exemption.
B. There can be no waiver of the rights unless the person who waived it has all information and knowledge about his right and waiver of the same. Waiver should be an intentional act with knowledge. There was no reason to believe that appellant was aware that his right would be waived due to partial exemption.
C. No, plaintiff didn’t waive his right to have a cause of action by accepting partial exemption.
D. Yes, plaintiff waived his right to have a cause of action by accepting partial exemption.
E. No writ petition can be entertained by court in this case - Whether the plaintiff can have a cause of action on the grounds of promissory estoppel?
A. Yes, in such cases contractual obligation is mandatory to bring a cause of action on the basis of promissory estopple.
B. There is no need for any contractual obligations before bringing a cause of action on the grounds of promissory estoppels. Action could be brought in those cases where no contractual obligation exists, but the same is intended for the future
C. No, Contractual obligation is not mandatory to bring a cause of action on the basis of promissory estopple.
D. This is depending on the discretion of the court - Whether any such action against the Government acting in governmental, sovereign or administrative capacity can lie?
A. No, Absolutely Not, where the element of sovereign function is present, one cannot sue the govt.
B. This doctrine would be applied against the Government, where it is necessary to prevent fraud and manifest justice. Where the Government owes a duty to the public to act differently, promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the Government from doing so.
C. Yes, such action against the Government acting in governmental, sovereign or administrative capacity can lie if it is permissible by the apex court.
D. Sovereign immunity of government is absolute and it cannot be challenge in any circumstance.
- Whether in the present case, the doctrine would be applicable because the plaintiff did not suffer any detriment?
A. To invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppels, it is not necessary for the promise to show that he suffered detriment as a result of acting in accordance with promise.
B. To invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppels, it is necessary for the promise to show that he suffered detriment as a result of acting in accordance with promise.
C. No, because it is always mandatory to suffer losses to invoke doctrine of promissory estopple.
D. This will be decided by the facts and circumstances and positions of parties to the case and it vary from case to case along with the discretion of the court.
10. Promissory estoppel is sometimes spoken of as a substitute for: A. Novation B. Quasi Contract C. Coercion D. Contract
6b 7b 8b 9a 10b
Passage 1:
Ralia Ram was one of its partners of a firm which dealt in bullion and other goods at Amritsar. It was duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act. On the 20th of September, 1947 Ralia Ram arrived at Meerut by the Frontier Mail to sell gold, silver, and other goods in the Meerut market. Whilst he was passing through the Chaupla Bazaar with this object, he was taken into custody by three police constables. His belongings were then searched and he was taken to the Kotwali Police Station. He was detained in the police lock-up there and his belongings were seized from him and kept in police custody. Then he was released on bail, and sometime thereafter the silver seized from him was returned to him. Ralia Ram made repeated demands for the return of the gold but he could not recover the gold from the police officers, he filed the present suit against the respondent in which he claimed a decree that the gold seized from him should either be returned to him or in the alternative, its value should be ordered to be paid to him. The gold in question had been taken into custody by one Mohammad Amir, who was then the Head Constable, and it had been kept in the police Malkhana under his charge. Mohd. Amir, however, misappropriated the gold and fled away to Pakistan soon thereafter. He had also misappropriated some other cash and articles deposited in the Malkhana before he left India. The respondent further alleged that a case under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code as well as s. 29 of the Police Act had been registered against Mohd. Amir, but he had not been apprehended. Alternatively, it was pleaded by the respondent that this was not a case of negligence of the police officers and that even if negligence was held proved against the said police officers, the respondent State could not be said to be liable for the loss resulting from such negligence.
1. Choose best available option:
A. State is responsible for the damage caused to Ralia Ram and must pay damages to him.
B. Constable Md. Amir is responsible as he done the act out of course of employment.
C. State is not responsible and will not pay the damages.
D. This is negligence on the part of Police department and department was acting under the state, so state is vicariously liable for the same.
E. Both State and Police department is liable for the damage caused to Ralia Ram.
C
The conductor invited passengers to travel on the roof of the bus. Because the bus was overloaded with passengers. To overtake a cart, the driver over turned the bus abruptly to right side of the road. As the driver turned on the kutcha portion of the road, a passenger names Tahir Sheikh, was hit by a branch of a tree and fell down from the bus and got seriously injured and later died. In an action by the bus driver, the mother of the deceased claimed compensation.
1. Choose best available option:
A. Absolute case of Volenti non fit injuria, no damages will be awarded.
B. Inevitable accident, as it is general trend in India to travel on the roof of bus.
C. Damages will be awarded after deducting the amount of contributory negligence.
D. Full damages will be awarded as it was the conductor who invited the passengers to travel on the roof of bus.
E. Full damages will be awarded as it was the conductor who invited the passengers to travel on the roof of bus and the driver who was driving negligently.
C
The working and management of college was carried by a society registered under Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act,1898. The Society is empowered by clause 3 sub- clause II of the Memorandum of Association to make rules for the conduct of the affairs of the Society and to, amend, them from time to time with the approval of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the Central Government. The college through a notice invited application for the B.E Course in various branches of Engineering. Petitioner applied for admission in the college. There were two sets of tests conducted Written Test and Viva Voice Test. The petitioner secured good marks in the written test but he was awarded poor marks in the viva examination due to which he didn’t clarify the admission test. The viva test conducted of the petitioner was of 2 to 3 minutes in which questions related to parenting and residence were asked. No formal question pertaining to the subject was asked to the petitioner. The petitioner found that there were few students who secured vey less marks in the written test but got selected for the admission in the college merely because they obtained high marks in the viva voice test. The petitioner aggrieved by the selection procedure of candidates in the Regional Engineering College filed a writ petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming that he was denied Right to Equality and the selection procedure was arbitrary as the selection criteria was relied on viva voice examination and by holding viva voice test lasting of only 2 or 3 minutes and asking questions which had no significance in changing the intellect of the candidate.
1. Choose best available option:
A. Writ petition is maintainable against the college because college is an instrumentality of state and selection procedure is violative of Article 14.
B. Writ petition is not maintainable against the college because college is not an instrumentality of state and selection procedure is not violative of Article 14.
C. Writ petition is not maintainable against the college because college is not an instrumentality of state but selection procedure is violative of Article 14.
D. Writ petition maintainable under article 226 only but the selection procedure is violative of Article 14.
Writ petition can be filed for the arbitrary selection procedure only.
A
On 11th November, 1970 at around 10:00 pm deceased Ranjit and his brother Samir were sitting outside their house and suddenly 3 police vehicles having 15-20 officers stopped in front of their house and rushed towards them. Both of them started running towards their house and the police officers were chasing them, having revolvers in their hands. Bibhuti Chakraborty made a shot from point blank range on Ranjit and other officers were also constantly firing on both of them which injured Ranjit and were able to catch both of them. They were dragged and dumped into the car. Ranjit and Samir both died before any medical assistance could be provided to them as they were injured due to the tussle at their house. Thereafter, Benoy brother of deceased was taken into custody, but was released on the bail. So, aggrieved by the decision of the police officers he filed a complaint in the court and the trial was initiated against them in the Sessions Court of Calcutta. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate initiated proceedings against respondents and convicted them for the offence under Sec 302 read with Sec 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and sentenced them to life imprisonment. An appeal was filed by the respondents in the High Court of Calcutta against the conviction order as passed by the subordinate court. The Honorable Court acquitted the appellants on the ground that police was on patrol duty and orders were there from Deputy Commissioner for open fire and thus actions of the convicts were totally justified. The court set aside the orders of trial court and acquitted the appellants for the case being. Aggrieved by the decision, the Special Leave Petition is filed by the State of West Bengal against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 1st August, 1980.
1. Choose best available option:
A. SC will uphold the decision of trial court and convict them under Sec 302 and 34.
B. SC will uphold the decision of High Court and acquit all the accused
C. As the order to open the fire was given by superior authorities of police officers, so they cannot be charged for murder and hence SC will charge them for GH only.
D. As per the facts of case it is clearly established that deceased didn’t open fire on police party, it was police party who open the fire first without any apprehension of fear and death so the SC will uphold the decision of trial court and convict them under Sec. 302 and 34 of IPC, because this is not justified act.
B
A Hyena, wild animal was moving in the villages and causing injuries and deaths to small children. The people frightened with it. They complained to the authorities. The Government deputed certain officers. While they were wandering in the forests in search of Hyena, they saw a moving animal behind the bushes. It was a rainy day and the vision was not clear. The officers thought that it was the Hyena. It was common that no people would be moving in that area and in particularly in that rainy time. The accused, one of the officers, fired at the moving object. The result was that the death of a human being.
5. Choose best available option:
A. He will be convicted for death by Rash and Negligent Act.
B. He will be Convicted for Culpable homicide not amount to murder.
C. He is having absolute immunity of mistake of fact and working under good faith and will not be convicted.
D. It was just an accident and he will not be charged for the same and Court will acquit him accordingly.
E. Although he was working under the order of the authorities but the element of good faith was missing as other officers didn’t fire on that moving object. So, he will be liable for the CH not amount to murder
D
The defendants (the Board) agreed with certain landowners adjoining a stream to improve the banks of the stream and to maintain them in good condition. The landlords on their part paid proportionate costs. Subsequently one of the landlords sold his land to the first plaintiff and he to the second plaintiff. There was negligence on the part of the Board in maintaining the banks, which burst and the land was flooded. Both the plaintiffs were strangers to the agreement with the Board. 5. Choose Correct option in the light of doctrine of privity of contract: A. Plaintiffs can sue the board. B. Plaintiffs cannot sue the Board. C. Only original landlord (who sold the land to plaintiff) can sue the board on the behalf of plaintiffs (beneficiary rule) D. Both the Plaintiffs and Original landlord (all three) can sue the board E. According to doctrine of privity of contract no one is in the capacity to sue the board, as original owner lost his right after selling the land to plaintiffs and Board didn’t contract with the plaintiffs.
A